As ReallyNow mentioned, most of the LOTR story is travel, lol. Things are happening in the (virtual) world, and they are observed and potentially interacted with by traveling. Are current games that much lobbyish in nature? Are there no interactions going on in the game world outside of instances? It must be so, else why would you liken travel to a romp through a forest which is devoid of everything except plant life?
No. Most of LOTR story is the interesting stuff happening during travel, not travel itself.
There is no 5 page description of riding a horse on a path, then move 100 feet, then move another 100 feet, then move another 100 feet, and so on.
The book skips to the FUN part.
The same as instant travel in games like SKYRIM.
And yes, current games are that much lobbyish ... you hit a button, and you get to the good parts.
But so much, of what is interesting, has nothing to do with fighting. It has more to do with describing what they see during their travels, how long until the next meal, and how much longer until they get where they are going. And about hiding and sneaking about, trying to avoid a fight. Some running for their lives. Quite a lot in fact. And some drama about who to trust or not having the strength to go on.
That made the characters relatable and the world believeable. I get none of that from contemporary MMOs, but I have from older MMOs.
As ReallyNow mentioned, most of the LOTR story is travel, lol. Things are happening in the (virtual) world, and they are observed and potentially interacted with by traveling. Are current games that much lobbyish in nature? Are there no interactions going on in the game world outside of instances? It must be so, else why would you liken travel to a romp through a forest which is devoid of everything except plant life?
No. Most of LOTR story is the interesting stuff happening during travel, not travel itself.
There is no 5 page description of riding a horse on a path, then move 100 feet, then move another 100 feet, then move another 100 feet, and so on.
The book skips to the FUN part.
The same as instant travel in games like SKYRIM.
And yes, current games are that much lobbyish ... you hit a button, and you get to the good parts.
But so much, of what is interesting, has nothing to do with fighting. It has more to do with describing what they see during their travels, how long until the next meal, and how much longer until they get where they are going. And about hiding and sneaking about, trying to avoid a fight. Some running for their lives. Quite a lot in fact. And some drama about who to trust or not having the strength to go on.
That made the characters relatable and the world believeable. I get none of that from contemporary MMOs, but I have from older MMOs.
Interesting to you, not to most people. Most people find all the details you listed boring. They are playing a game to have fun. They are not playing to live a virtual life in a fantasy world.
That is a very naive and idealistic way of looking at this. Things can happen, sure, but overwhelming majority of times, nothing happens - nothing fun anyway. Travel is sure to be fun for the first few times at most. After that, it often starts to feel like a commute. Then it becomes a hindrance.
Same thing with corpse runs: Most of the time, they're an annoyance. The good do not outweigh the bad.
And that's an equally pessimistic and derisive way of looking at this.
The fact remains that these mechanics are capable of integration into a much more complex mechanic. Things don't always have to happen and things do sometimes have issues where they can drag on, yes.
If you notice, people haven't argued to retain the basic mechanics, they have argued for the emergent and system play that builds off of them. The potential and actual implementation has existed for having more involved game play built off of things like travel and death and while as it's been implemented has tended to open it to tedium, it's not in any way what it needs to remain.
Hence my previous point on removing such mechanics entirely being a shortcut method to getting more focused 'action' gameplay.
Icewhite definitely had the right point on the matter when saying this.
"Maybe ya'll are mutually unintelligible because you're thinking about totally different situations that you generalize into "Travel"."
Like your own commentary. You draw up example of what you consider the common case, and disregard the rest of the commentary as 'idealistic' rather than acknowledging it as saying there is potential in the system, not simply calling the system good or bad.
Same reason again I have so much issue with Axehilt and to a lesser degree Naru. They want what they want and if the concept varies then they note it's not what they want. The conversation goes nowhere else. Axe even goes so far as to truck out that 'Theory of Fun' stuff every single time as if a single study and essay defines human nature in it's entirety.
The fact his theory builds itself on 'pattern mastery' ends up failing to acknowledge the reasons games like Sims and Minecraft can be so crazy popular. The creative and tinkering elements where they aren't trying to figure a preset mechanic out, but instead developing new elements and creating their own solutions and designs.
There is considerably more to fun that being a good monkey and sequencing your keystrokes. Hence there is more to fun than simply action and a game that's expansive as an MMO really needs more than a single skinner box to keep the treadmill going.
And consequently, the mechanics that enable broader forms of interactivity, while not always 'fun' of their own accord, enable a combination of many more emergent and scripted elements that add plenty of depth and variance to the game. A possibility that the exclusion of these elements simply wipes from happening.
There are alternatives and choices that can be built into travel as well that eliminates many of the concerns people like you, Axe, and Naru claim that in turn also get to preserve other people the ability to choose and freely interact. Much like Skyrim has the carts and fast travel on top of being able to free roam.
But for some reason that is not an option?
Why is it we cannot give an open world with travel and death runs, then place convenience factors on the side for those who wish to shortcut such as paying a fee to summon your gear back or travel systems?
As others have stated they enjoy the presence of these elements partially because it's a strong penalty and is meant to teach the player the point of not messing up. For others it's an opportunity to emergent and immersive gameplay.
For me it's very much because having it, while more difficult to manage, opens up considerably more potential than simply minimizing/removing it. There are solutions for those that prefer to shortcut to the action without removing other's ability to actually enjoy the game world granted to them by the freedom of travel.
As games get smarter, the complaints can very well be minimized too. Same as the EQN storybricks system couples with the AI to build more fluid interaction between players, NPCs and mobs in the game world, so too can it be used by pulling data on the players as they progress in the game and tailoring both the frequency and types of activities around them to provide a more and more consistent stream of play content at a pace they can enjoy.
EDIT: Point in case. The fact the primary argument being made focuses on using ridiculong periods of time spent just traveling, such as 30 min to a couple hours.
The fact this argument hinges on people not realizing this travel is likely broken up with alternative activity and isn't a straight jaunt without anything else happening is one hint the argument is a point built solely on a matter of opinion and not merit.
The second fact being the argument relies on this travel being specifically devoid of activity, interaction, conversations, strategizing, etc.
The third fact being the argument is utilized in response to arguments that are considerably more vague on the travel time itself. Like I noted above the actual reason people advocate the system isn't simply for what it's been, but what it enables and the effects in incurs. This means the actual time spent traveling at a basic level is more variable, something that can be tailored to find a better balance between convenience and meaning. Same as having shortcut methods that people can pay into using or unlock.
Basically, the core argument of travel being boring is in part a given that's not really the subject of argument, but rather a side issue that seeks solutions, and also in part a herring or strawman made to present a misdirect.
Is it a valid reason to be concerned about travel? In a general sense yeah.
But is it a valid reason to remove travel and the subsequent world and potential choices of play and interactivity that accompanies it? To some people here and myself, no.
To cut an appendage off because of an ailment that can be cured is foolish at best.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Same thing with corpse runs: Most of the time, they're an annoyance. The good do not outweigh the bad.
And that's an equally pessimistic and derisive way of looking at this.
The fact remains that these mechanics are capable of integration into a much more complex mechanic. Things don't always have to happen and things do sometimes have issues where they can drag on, yes.
Well, you said it. They can drag on. Eliminate them. And corpse run is never complex, just punishing (the EQ kind, not the WoW little penalty kind).
And no it is not pessimistic. Get rid of the stuff that "drag on" and focus on fun. That is positive. It is fixing the problem.
No. Most of LOTR story is the interesting stuff happening during travel, not travel itself.
There is no 5 page description of riding a horse on a path, then move 100 feet, then move another 100 feet, then move another 100 feet, and so on.
The book skips to the FUN part.
The same as instant travel in games like SKYRIM.
And yes, current games are that much lobbyish ... you hit a button, and you get to the good parts.
But so much, of what is interesting, has nothing to do with fighting. It has more to do with describing what they see during their travels, how long until the next meal, and how much longer until they get where they are going. And about hiding and sneaking about, trying to avoid a fight. Some running for their lives. Quite a lot in fact. And some drama about who to trust or not having the strength to go on.
That made the characters relatable and the world believeable. I get none of that from contemporary MMOs, but I have from older MMOs.
Interesting to you, not to most people. Most people find all the details you listed boring. They are playing a game to have fun. They are not playing to live a virtual life in a fantasy world.
Maybe the problem is with you, not everyone else.
I was replying to a specific point about LOTR. A pretty damn popular book.. sure books arent for everyone and LOTR isnt for everyone who enjoys books. But I dont see how that means I have a problem and if it is one I am certainly not the only one suffering from Tolkienitis.
Not quite the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I shouldn't have said less exciting, but said less desirable when I made the point about corpse runs.
And when it comes to traveling I wasnt advocating uneventful traveling or a passive experience. Like it was said in a AC4 dev video they want something interesting to occur every few minutes when on the open sea. Like whales, storms, targets, being chased by others, and uncharted islands. Stuff like that.. Some of which you can chose to engage in or not and some of it will be forced on you since you arent fast enough or clever enough to outmaneuver the enemy.
In an MMO, with an overall strategic layer as well as a tactical layer, it would be important to have distance and locations mean something. That involves traveling. And while it is not pointless in that situation, can very clearly be made boring. You could have it be cutscene with an in flight movie, an open world train ride, a horse ride or jog where you had to steer, or it could be a race with sneak parts involved and with auto run toggleable so you could focus on your surroundings instead of walking.. because we can both agree walking is not the skill we want to be testing in an MMO... World of QWOP anyone?..
It could also be some deeper sailing mechanic.. where you actually had to handle a sailing ship and not some windpowered motorboat.
Oh damn.. I just said deeper mechanic....I was hoping you would have defined what you meant by deep gameplay and deep combat, before I stepped on that land mine.
Well we've already covered that consistently eventful travel (which would be different from nearly every MMORPG) would be fine.
As for the strategic layer, many games have far greater strategic depth without having the player spend excessive time in shallow systems like travel. So there are definitely other ways of achieving similar or greater strategic depth than forcing travel on players. Even if you say "I want to have an economy where things exist at actual locations" you don't have to task the player to hauling those goods; they can hire a limited number of NPCs to cart around goods, which results in 90% of the depth of a typical strategic player economy system with 0% of the tedium. (The precise balance of those carts, and the ways you can protect them or raid them, and the overall structure of the economy, crafting, and city-building, would of course dictate the final depth of the system. But no part of that requires that the player be forced to engage with a shallow system.)
As for depth, I'm sort of in the midst of pinning down a specific definition which improves upon Sirlin's definition of game depth (which includes a few rather limiting words like "multiplayer" and "strategically interesting".)
"A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries." -Sirlin, 2002
The problems with his definition are:
"Multiplayer". Obviously it's not just multiplayer games which have depth. This is the easiest one to solve as we just remove the word and it applies to all gaming.
"Strategically interesting". This is a bit too limiting as game depth really applies to all forms of player skill. Skill is composed of some combination of decision-making (strategy, tactics) and execution (twitch, UI clicks.)
"years, decades, or centuries" correlates depth a bit too closely with time investment, which is dangerous since obviously if you made the minimum turn length in Chess an entire year the game won't have become deeper, just more tedious. I'm thinking it's more an measure of problems incurred where the player must make a decision, and the more of those decision points which are incurred before a game is no longer strategically interesting is the measure of a game's depth.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
As for the strategic layer, many games have far greater strategic depth without having the player spend excessive time in shallow systems like travel.
This is the key point. Travel, and in my case, defined as moving from point A to B, without any encounter, or chance of it, is shallow, boring, and better eliminated (for me).
Everyone arguing for adding encounter, and sneaking through enemies territory is missing the point. Those are not "pure" travel. Those are conflict-based gameplay, which *can* be interesting and entertaining.
Just take away all the pure travel stuff like the boat ride in EQ. Nothing fun ever happened there.
And also don't put in a 1 in 100 chance of something interesting happening. That is too much boredom to fun ratio. Just skip to the fun part.
for those that miss corpse runs save yourself a sub fee and just go slam the car door on your genitals once or twice a gaming session. Same effect pretty much
At times I am nostalgic for my first car which was a 68 Mustang, but when my brother in law bought a restored 66 and I rode in in it the fun wore off quickly and I rediscovered exactly how uncomfortable the car was
Is is more rational to think everyone but oneself is missing the point, or that perhaps one is missing the point everyone else is trying to make?
This claim, this quote right here....
"As for the strategic layer, many games have far greater strategic depth without having the player spend excessive time in shallow systems like travel."
Circumnavigates just about every factual standard.
Can you have deep strategy elements without travel? Yes.
Can you build systems that approximate events done via travel such as automating resource movement and what-not? Sure.
Does that translate to a game that can have 'greater strategic depth'? No
That notion can only stand on the premise of opinion, not fact. I have given examples previously how actual space and consequent travel can play into a valuable role in conflict with both players and NPCs. Removing travel changes the fundamental play.
Time becomes less relevant (unless it's replaced with an alternative time sink) and the actual options and variety of actions that can be done gets reduced. There is no way around that fact. The removal of an activity will always spell out the removal of action and the potential emergent play.
Events like migration, herd dynamics, the territory consumed in the placement of a town up to a city, the principles of maneuvering across enemy front lines for any kind of greater strategy. These are some of the things that can't simply be approximated and passed on in isolation. Their meaning goes away as the specific reason they work with travel present is missing.
Similar to the concept of 'having an economy with actual locations.'
And that is space. Without space there is no concept or meaning to 'actual locations'. There are no events that actually surround them, there are events with perhaps some text fluff. There's conflict, and not much else. That is not deeper, that's just 'cleaner'.
At what point does the removal of activity from the players hand finally make one question if they need an avatar at all? With enough actions automated by the NPCs and the choice of interaction taken away from the player, the game approaches a more RTS than personal feel, and you might as well give up a personal avatar for the option to possess someone randomly in each fight.
The fact it is acknowledged that what we suggest (travel with activity and emergent play value) is something Axehilt and company have to say they agree to and then disregard to repeat the same thing that 'just walking is boring' points out rather the fact that they are in agreement, but refuse to acknowledge.
The sole principle separating the two groups at this point is whether travel is present at a base level to support play or not. It's not a matter of how the game would actually play, because many of the suggestions lands the gameplay in roughly the same territory without us standing on the premise of tedium.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Originally posted by Deivos At what point does the removal of activity from the players hand finally make one question if they need an avatar at all? With enough actions automated by the NPCs and the choice of interaction taken away from the player, the game approaches a more RTS than personal feel, and you might as well give up a personal avatar for the option to possess someone randomly in each fight.
Your posts are best read in their entirety for sure; some of the best material I've read on the internet. Bravo. I am quoting this particular piece because it is something I doubt anyone has considered before, and is certainly something to think about.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
And that is space. Without space there is no concept or meaning to 'actual locations'. There are no events that actually surround them, there are events with perhaps some text fluff. There's conflict, and not much else. That is not deeper, that's just 'cleaner'.
You don't need "actual locations" to have fun events. The concept of levels, and disjointed locations are used in many video games, including some (but not all) MMOs.
And "deep" has so many dimensions that i doubt you can have a general rule of what is "deeper".
For example, chess is agreed upon almost by everyone that it is a tactically deep game. And it does not have a world, and just a grid of 8x8. There is no travel, no story, no characters, and yet still deep.
I would say whether a game is deep or not has nothing to do with space and location, and has everything to do with the game mechanics.
And that is space. Without space there is no concept or meaning to 'actual locations'. There are no events that actually surround them, there are events with perhaps some text fluff. There's conflict, and not much else. That is not deeper, that's just 'cleaner'.
You don't need "actual locations" to have fun events. The concept of levels, and disjointed locations are used in many video games, including some (but not all) MMOs.
And "deep" has so many dimensions that i doubt you can have a general rule of what is "deeper".
For example, chess is agreed upon almost by everyone that it is a tactically deep game. And it does not have a world, and just a grid of 8x8. There is no travel, no story, no characters, and yet still deep.
I would say whether a game is deep or not has nothing to do with space and location, and has everything to do with the game mechanics.
Are you really trying to compare Chess to an MMORPG or any video game for that matter?!!!
And that is space. Without space there is no concept or meaning to 'actual locations'. There are no events that actually surround them, there are events with perhaps some text fluff. There's conflict, and not much else. That is not deeper, that's just 'cleaner'.
You don't need "actual locations" to have fun events. The concept of levels, and disjointed locations are used in many video games, including some (but not all) MMOs.
And "deep" has so many dimensions that i doubt you can have a general rule of what is "deeper".
For example, chess is agreed upon almost by everyone that it is a tactically deep game. And it does not have a world, and just a grid of 8x8. There is no travel, no story, no characters, and yet still deep.
I would say whether a game is deep or not has nothing to do with space and location, and has everything to do with the game mechanics.
Are you really trying to compare Chess to an MMORPG or any video game for that matter?!!!
Nope. I am trying to illustrate the depth of gameplay depends on the game mechanics, not whether there is a 3D representation of a world, or a location.
Using an example seems to be appropriate since many may not get the point.
And you missed where I explained the presence of those things adding and changing the options available to play, which consequently has a direct impact on the depth of any game for better or worse.
Like I illustrated before with my passing commentary on battlefield scenarios.
Fitting it to your analogy, That space is basically enabling you to string concurrent chess games that can both directly and indirectly influence the outcome of each other chess game. Like players passing chess pieces between one another before losing them so any given game can have an upset in the numbers and control a player can have.
You can approximate some of this without needing space, but it will always be at a loss to options. Where there is no tangible point of interaction, there is no manipulation, only chance on pre-scripted variables.
It's rather the reason you have the travel time between lanes in MOBAS. The distance between each lane and the time it takes to move through and between them isn't arbitrary, it's has a very purposeful element to it that if you were to remove that travel time, it would cause a very different form of play to be produced.
So yes, depth does indeed depend on game mechanics.
Space and location is a game mechanic, with impact and meaning to it's presence that influences play on a strategic and psychological level both.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Fitting it to your analogy, That space is basically enabling you to string concurrent chess games that can both directly and indirectly influence the outcome of each other chess game. Like players passing chess pieces between one another before losing them so any given game can have an upset in the numbers and control a player can have.
You can approximate some of this without needing space, but it will always be at a loss to options. Where there is no tangible point of interaction, there is no manipulation, only chance on pre-scripted variables.
Space and location is a game mechanic, with impact and meaning to it's presence that influences play on a strategic and psychological level both.
Space and location adds to depth if it is in relation to a mechanics like combat. Hence, even in instanced game, you have a 3D representation of a dungeon. In chess, the co-ordinates are spatial elements for tactical combat.
However, an abundance of space with no activity but traveling inside only adds to the boredom. In fact, it is a loss in options, at least temporarily, if you locked a player into a space with nothing but movement. There are more options if you pop up a menu and ask him if he want to go to point A, B or C.
Note that this is completely different than in a combat situation where distance is a tactical factor.
I found old eq corpse runs added lot of fear and worry. It was good and bad. Might I add at the time I was way to addicted to Evercrack. Long as it isn't to hard to get the corpse that holds all your gear I don't have to much of problem with it. I even had to pay lot of PP to necro to summon it few times. Problem came when I couldn't get cleric to rez or necro to summon. As a rogue I did pull lot of corpses for people but course see invis mob were a problem. With all the zerg tactics today I did like the fear of working your way back to camp site. The fear of when things went bad and fight or flight kicks in. Over all I don't think the added stress and time used is good for most gamers today. Everquest was one few games I felt like my character was another me or person in it self. Corpse run and all that just made it feel so real like. Running naked to get your body is just so funny and hard. Used to keep spare set of gear for corpse run. Falling off the boats and asking gm to summon your body. It was great and hardcore but most of gamers today couldn't handle it. Also to many trolls today would get people killed in bad spots. I don't see it making come back, least not full corpse of gear and all.
Originally posted by freakky I found old eq corpse runs added lot of fear and worry. It was good and bad.
It is all bad for me. I don't want the fear of have to waste my time and regrind in my games.
And every modern MMO without corpse run is more fun (to me) than EQ. Of course corpse run is only one of the reasons EQ is not fun for me. There are many.
Comments
But so much, of what is interesting, has nothing to do with fighting. It has more to do with describing what they see during their travels, how long until the next meal, and how much longer until they get where they are going. And about hiding and sneaking about, trying to avoid a fight. Some running for their lives. Quite a lot in fact. And some drama about who to trust or not having the strength to go on.
That made the characters relatable and the world believeable. I get none of that from contemporary MMOs, but I have from older MMOs.
Interesting to you, not to most people. Most people find all the details you listed boring. They are playing a game to have fun. They are not playing to live a virtual life in a fantasy world.
Maybe the problem is with you, not everyone else.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
And that's an equally pessimistic and derisive way of looking at this.
The fact remains that these mechanics are capable of integration into a much more complex mechanic. Things don't always have to happen and things do sometimes have issues where they can drag on, yes.
If you notice, people haven't argued to retain the basic mechanics, they have argued for the emergent and system play that builds off of them. The potential and actual implementation has existed for having more involved game play built off of things like travel and death and while as it's been implemented has tended to open it to tedium, it's not in any way what it needs to remain.
Hence my previous point on removing such mechanics entirely being a shortcut method to getting more focused 'action' gameplay.
Icewhite definitely had the right point on the matter when saying this.
"Maybe ya'll are mutually unintelligible because you're thinking about totally different situations that you generalize into "Travel"."
Like your own commentary. You draw up example of what you consider the common case, and disregard the rest of the commentary as 'idealistic' rather than acknowledging it as saying there is potential in the system, not simply calling the system good or bad.
Same reason again I have so much issue with Axehilt and to a lesser degree Naru. They want what they want and if the concept varies then they note it's not what they want. The conversation goes nowhere else. Axe even goes so far as to truck out that 'Theory of Fun' stuff every single time as if a single study and essay defines human nature in it's entirety.
The fact his theory builds itself on 'pattern mastery' ends up failing to acknowledge the reasons games like Sims and Minecraft can be so crazy popular. The creative and tinkering elements where they aren't trying to figure a preset mechanic out, but instead developing new elements and creating their own solutions and designs.
There is considerably more to fun that being a good monkey and sequencing your keystrokes. Hence there is more to fun than simply action and a game that's expansive as an MMO really needs more than a single skinner box to keep the treadmill going.
And consequently, the mechanics that enable broader forms of interactivity, while not always 'fun' of their own accord, enable a combination of many more emergent and scripted elements that add plenty of depth and variance to the game. A possibility that the exclusion of these elements simply wipes from happening.
There are alternatives and choices that can be built into travel as well that eliminates many of the concerns people like you, Axe, and Naru claim that in turn also get to preserve other people the ability to choose and freely interact. Much like Skyrim has the carts and fast travel on top of being able to free roam.
But for some reason that is not an option?
Why is it we cannot give an open world with travel and death runs, then place convenience factors on the side for those who wish to shortcut such as paying a fee to summon your gear back or travel systems?
As others have stated they enjoy the presence of these elements partially because it's a strong penalty and is meant to teach the player the point of not messing up. For others it's an opportunity to emergent and immersive gameplay.
For me it's very much because having it, while more difficult to manage, opens up considerably more potential than simply minimizing/removing it. There are solutions for those that prefer to shortcut to the action without removing other's ability to actually enjoy the game world granted to them by the freedom of travel.
As games get smarter, the complaints can very well be minimized too. Same as the EQN storybricks system couples with the AI to build more fluid interaction between players, NPCs and mobs in the game world, so too can it be used by pulling data on the players as they progress in the game and tailoring both the frequency and types of activities around them to provide a more and more consistent stream of play content at a pace they can enjoy.
EDIT: Point in case. The fact the primary argument being made focuses on using ridiculong periods of time spent just traveling, such as 30 min to a couple hours.
The fact this argument hinges on people not realizing this travel is likely broken up with alternative activity and isn't a straight jaunt without anything else happening is one hint the argument is a point built solely on a matter of opinion and not merit.
The second fact being the argument relies on this travel being specifically devoid of activity, interaction, conversations, strategizing, etc.
The third fact being the argument is utilized in response to arguments that are considerably more vague on the travel time itself. Like I noted above the actual reason people advocate the system isn't simply for what it's been, but what it enables and the effects in incurs. This means the actual time spent traveling at a basic level is more variable, something that can be tailored to find a better balance between convenience and meaning. Same as having shortcut methods that people can pay into using or unlock.
Basically, the core argument of travel being boring is in part a given that's not really the subject of argument, but rather a side issue that seeks solutions, and also in part a herring or strawman made to present a misdirect.
Is it a valid reason to be concerned about travel? In a general sense yeah.
But is it a valid reason to remove travel and the subsequent world and potential choices of play and interactivity that accompanies it? To some people here and myself, no.
To cut an appendage off because of an ailment that can be cured is foolish at best.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Well, you said it. They can drag on. Eliminate them. And corpse run is never complex, just punishing (the EQ kind, not the WoW little penalty kind).
And no it is not pessimistic. Get rid of the stuff that "drag on" and focus on fun. That is positive. It is fixing the problem.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I was replying to a specific point about LOTR. A pretty damn popular book.. sure books arent for everyone and LOTR isnt for everyone who enjoys books. But I dont see how that means I have a problem and if it is one I am certainly not the only one suffering from Tolkienitis.
You did say "sometimes they drag on". That sentence is very self-contained.
If so, get rid of them.
And I also provide an expanded commentary on it as well on solutions to it.
Your commentary is encapsulated by one of the things I talk about within that post.
So I repeat, next time read the whole post.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I am not interested in any solution for some gameplay that "drags on" except to eliminate it.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Well we've already covered that consistently eventful travel (which would be different from nearly every MMORPG) would be fine.
As for the strategic layer, many games have far greater strategic depth without having the player spend excessive time in shallow systems like travel. So there are definitely other ways of achieving similar or greater strategic depth than forcing travel on players. Even if you say "I want to have an economy where things exist at actual locations" you don't have to task the player to hauling those goods; they can hire a limited number of NPCs to cart around goods, which results in 90% of the depth of a typical strategic player economy system with 0% of the tedium. (The precise balance of those carts, and the ways you can protect them or raid them, and the overall structure of the economy, crafting, and city-building, would of course dictate the final depth of the system. But no part of that requires that the player be forced to engage with a shallow system.)
As for depth, I'm sort of in the midst of pinning down a specific definition which improves upon Sirlin's definition of game depth (which includes a few rather limiting words like "multiplayer" and "strategically interesting".)
"A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries." -Sirlin, 2002
The problems with his definition are:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
for those that miss corpse runs save yourself a sub fee and just go slam the car door on your genitals once or twice a gaming session. Same effect pretty much
At times I am nostalgic for my first car which was a 68 Mustang, but when my brother in law bought a restored 66 and I rode in in it the fun wore off quickly and I rediscovered exactly how uncomfortable the car was
I miss DAoC
Quick rational moment here.
Is is more rational to think everyone but oneself is missing the point, or that perhaps one is missing the point everyone else is trying to make?
This claim, this quote right here....
"As for the strategic layer, many games have far greater strategic depth without having the player spend excessive time in shallow systems like travel."
Circumnavigates just about every factual standard.
Can you have deep strategy elements without travel? Yes.
Can you build systems that approximate events done via travel such as automating resource movement and what-not? Sure.
Does that translate to a game that can have 'greater strategic depth'? No
That notion can only stand on the premise of opinion, not fact. I have given examples previously how actual space and consequent travel can play into a valuable role in conflict with both players and NPCs. Removing travel changes the fundamental play.
Time becomes less relevant (unless it's replaced with an alternative time sink) and the actual options and variety of actions that can be done gets reduced. There is no way around that fact. The removal of an activity will always spell out the removal of action and the potential emergent play.
Events like migration, herd dynamics, the territory consumed in the placement of a town up to a city, the principles of maneuvering across enemy front lines for any kind of greater strategy. These are some of the things that can't simply be approximated and passed on in isolation. Their meaning goes away as the specific reason they work with travel present is missing.
Similar to the concept of 'having an economy with actual locations.'
And that is space. Without space there is no concept or meaning to 'actual locations'. There are no events that actually surround them, there are events with perhaps some text fluff. There's conflict, and not much else. That is not deeper, that's just 'cleaner'.
At what point does the removal of activity from the players hand finally make one question if they need an avatar at all? With enough actions automated by the NPCs and the choice of interaction taken away from the player, the game approaches a more RTS than personal feel, and you might as well give up a personal avatar for the option to possess someone randomly in each fight.
The fact it is acknowledged that what we suggest (travel with activity and emergent play value) is something Axehilt and company have to say they agree to and then disregard to repeat the same thing that 'just walking is boring' points out rather the fact that they are in agreement, but refuse to acknowledge.
The sole principle separating the two groups at this point is whether travel is present at a base level to support play or not. It's not a matter of how the game would actually play, because many of the suggestions lands the gameplay in roughly the same territory without us standing on the premise of tedium.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
The only AAA game that has perma-death is Diablo 3. Play that if you want dying to bite.
Your posts are best read in their entirety for sure; some of the best material I've read on the internet. Bravo. I am quoting this particular piece because it is something I doubt anyone has considered before, and is certainly something to think about.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
You don't need "actual locations" to have fun events. The concept of levels, and disjointed locations are used in many video games, including some (but not all) MMOs.
And "deep" has so many dimensions that i doubt you can have a general rule of what is "deeper".
For example, chess is agreed upon almost by everyone that it is a tactically deep game. And it does not have a world, and just a grid of 8x8. There is no travel, no story, no characters, and yet still deep.
I would say whether a game is deep or not has nothing to do with space and location, and has everything to do with the game mechanics.
Are you really trying to compare Chess to an MMORPG or any video game for that matter?!!!
Nope. I am trying to illustrate the depth of gameplay depends on the game mechanics, not whether there is a 3D representation of a world, or a location.
Using an example seems to be appropriate since many may not get the point.
And you missed where I explained the presence of those things adding and changing the options available to play, which consequently has a direct impact on the depth of any game for better or worse.
Like I illustrated before with my passing commentary on battlefield scenarios.
Fitting it to your analogy, That space is basically enabling you to string concurrent chess games that can both directly and indirectly influence the outcome of each other chess game. Like players passing chess pieces between one another before losing them so any given game can have an upset in the numbers and control a player can have.
You can approximate some of this without needing space, but it will always be at a loss to options. Where there is no tangible point of interaction, there is no manipulation, only chance on pre-scripted variables.
It's rather the reason you have the travel time between lanes in MOBAS. The distance between each lane and the time it takes to move through and between them isn't arbitrary, it's has a very purposeful element to it that if you were to remove that travel time, it would cause a very different form of play to be produced.
So yes, depth does indeed depend on game mechanics.
Space and location is a game mechanic, with impact and meaning to it's presence that influences play on a strategic and psychological level both.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Space and location adds to depth if it is in relation to a mechanics like combat. Hence, even in instanced game, you have a 3D representation of a dungeon. In chess, the co-ordinates are spatial elements for tactical combat.
However, an abundance of space with no activity but traveling inside only adds to the boredom. In fact, it is a loss in options, at least temporarily, if you locked a player into a space with nothing but movement. There are more options if you pop up a menu and ask him if he want to go to point A, B or C.
Note that this is completely different than in a combat situation where distance is a tactical factor.
It is all bad for me. I don't want the fear of have to waste my time and regrind in my games.
And every modern MMO without corpse run is more fun (to me) than EQ. Of course corpse run is only one of the reasons EQ is not fun for me. There are many.